Daily Beast exclusive and more

[clairiere]

* Jace Lacob @ the Daily Beast is one of the biggest DA champions out there, and he didn't disappoint with his S2 exclusive today. Based on his interviews with Julian Fellowes as well as the DA cast while they were in the US for the TCA tour, the exclusive consists of two parts:

1. The Brits' Surprising Emmy Hit: ‘Downton Abbey’ creator Julian

Comments

[clunkhall]

"Romantic lead Dan Stevens"?? QUITE!!

Very interesting spoilers. Interesting to get a little more behind Matthew's regard for Lavinia (being from the same background etc), and I'm encouraged, actually, by what DS says about the 'triangle' - it sounds complex and interesting! (And my faith is now unshakeable in M/M!)

I'm very intrigued by some Mary/Edith bonding! Also by the developments in O'Brien and Thomas' characters. Cannot wait for Thomas/Matthew meeting at the front!

I love waking up to spoilers - thank you!!

[sarapellow]

Fantastic article, it's been a while since there's been new fodder to feed our fangirl imaginings for Series 2

[clairiere]

I just don't see Matthew as being bitter towards Mary - when she stalls giving him an answer he tells Isobel not to speak against her, and at the garden party he's disappointed and sad, not angry.

Nor do I, and I agree with your assessment of ep. 7. I never saw him as someone who harbors a grudge or holds onto anger and bitterness, letting it distort him. Doesn't mean he doesn't have deep feelings still, but that's separate from bitterness, IMO. Moreover, it'll be two years since he saw Mary when they meet again, during which he would have seen battle and more on the front. Somehow I just can't picture him being hostile towards Mary, awkward maybe but certainly not angry or bitter. Maybe it's just me, but over time, I tend to remember the good stuff, rather than the bad stuff, and even with the bad stuff, I'm more objective about it than I was at the time (ie. less angry or hurt). Again, doesn't mean I don't have deep, strong feelings about the bad stuff, but anger and bitterness is what goes away first.

I was heartened by Julian

[clairiere]

An 'insider' poster on IMDb (who's been very accurate with filming schedules and stuff, long before these were confirmed elsewhere) had an interesting comment re: the S2 press pack (and I think she was referring to the character profiles rather than the interviews):

Honestly, the hyperbole of the presspack bears very little relation to the actual series - I don't recognise any storylines from that description.

Food for thought, given that the press pack was seen as "glum" vs. other/later spoilers in the press.

[clunkhall]

You know, I thought that about the s1 press pack - which I only read after watching the series. It seemed to bear very little relation to anything!

And already, what we know of s2 - where the press pack refers back to s1 it isn't always right (you already know my issue with that!!) - and it just baffles me. How can the OFFICIAL press pack not be correct?

It's just led me to take everything in it (as you say, regarding the character profiles) with a pinch of salt... So frustrating!

[clairiere]

I think part of the problem is that they could only produce the press pack when filming was still on-going, and even assuming Fellowes mapped out everything to the end, things are liable to change as his scripts are transferred to the screen. Probably not the broad outlines (such as Pamuk's death and Anna, Cora helping out Mary in S1) but a few details here and there (eg. the Duke/Thomas kiss in ep. 1) and the nature of interactions. The only way for the press pack to be 100% accurate would be to draw up the character profiles and interview the cast after filming's in the can, if not at the end of post-production, and for Fellowes et al. to have complete oversight of the whole process. But throw in publicists, the need to hold a press junket weeks before the broadcast, the time and effort required to interview a very large cast, etc. and you have a rough guide, not some canon, to the series